From the 25th to the 26th of January 2007, a group of IPPNW doctors and medical students blockaded the entrance of the only British nuclear weapons base at Faslane in Scotland. This is an interview with one of the participants, Alex Rosen from Germany.

---

Alex, please describe the group that went up

We were 27 MedAct doctors - mostly from Scotland and England and three medical students from Sweden, England and Ireland. Most doctors run their own GP practices in the area, but there were also hospital doctors present. The medical students are all involved in the Nuclear Weapons Inheritance Project (NWIP), one of the major international student projects of IPPNW.

How did the public react to you in Glasgow

We first had a public demonstration in Glasgow's Buchanan Street, where we offered a free health check up to passers-by and talked to them about the possible effects Trident Replacement could have on their health. Under the motto "Treatment not Trident", we pushed the point across that 20 billion pounds are better spent on health care, education or development than on unsafe, indiscriminate and illegal weapons of mass destruction stationed in Scotland. The general public, which we approached with our "Prescription for the Prevention of Nuclear War" seemed aware of the current debate about Trident and some were really eager to find out more. A few people said that they were for Trident Replacement and shrugged off any attempt to start a dialogue. The ones that were already convinced stayed the longest in order to talk with us about possible ways out of the quagmire. Many people, both young and old, reacted with comments like "You won't be able to change anything anyways" or "They will go ahead with it, no matter what we say or do". Positive examples of the public's power to influence big politics seemed unable to convince them, but we are still convinced that with enough pressure form the public and institutions like the Royal Society of Medicine, unions, the church and others, we can really make a difference. If this issue comes before Parliament, which the government will obviously try to prevent, then we have a real chance by lobbying the MPs directly. When we told people to lobby their MP on this issue, it seemed a rather abstract and difficult thing to them. They much rather wanted to just sign a petition and have it done with.

What's Faslane like?

Faslane is a huge complex of buildings, docks, streets and heavy protection facilities right smack in the beautiful hills of the Firth of Clyde. There's a mile-long heavily guarded fence hung with razor wire and the like and police cars patrol the area to make sure no one stops on the road to take pictures or a closer look at the base. Around 6,000 people go in and out of the base each day so that at rush hour times, the base's gates are passed by hundreds of cars, trucks and busses each day. There's police staffing the two main gates in the South and North of the base, but as long as no one blocks the entrance, they seem to handle the situation very well and seem sympathetic to the cause. Perhaps they don't want this nuclear base in Scotland either. There are two submarines stationed at Faslane, two more are patrolling out on sea, carrying illegal weapons of mass destruction aimed at the former Soviet Union. What a disgrace for a democratic country like the UK - 17 years after the Cold War. Even more astonishing than Faslane is the nearby missile storage facility - almost equal in size to Faslane - on the other coast of the firth. Here the nuclear warheads are stored and maintained and regularly loaded onto the submarines. Faslane is merely a small part of a huge complex of bases, infrastructure and facilities all working on maintaining a fleet of four Trident submarines and their approximately 200 nuclear warheads - each one with many times the destructive power of the bombs that wreaked havoc on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Since police constantly patrol the roads, the firth and the bases, many hundreds of men are employed solely for security reasons. The costs of simply securing the weapons of mass destruction stationed at Faslane must be enormous - not to speak of the maintenance costs these radioactive warheads must cause.

Shouldn't people respect the law? How did the police react to you?

On July 8th, 1996, the International Court of Justice, the highest judicial body in the world ruled that nuclear weapons are illegal and the "threat or use of force by means of nuclear weapons (...) is unlawful" (see here). The UK and several other countries in the world, do not seem to think that international law applies to them and continue to harbour these illegal weapons on their soil, threatening to us use them in defending national interest. As health care professionals we know that nuclear weapons kill three times: by diverting funds away from health care and development (approximately 1.5 trillion British pounds have been spent on nuclear weapons by Britain alone), by killing indiscriminately when used and by continuing to kill decades later through radiation, cancer and the destruction of infrastructure. We see the World Court ruling as more binding than a nation's rogue-like insistence to continue threatening others with WMDs. Protesters who were charged for blockading Faslane have in the past been acquitted of these charges for that very reason. We feel we're doing the right - the legal thing. The police seem to by sympathetic to our cause and were more than helpful - obviously not wanting us to get the impression that they were in any way condoning the base, but rather doing their business in protecting state property.

Describe the moment when people blocked the road.

One of the doctors took to the megaphone while 10 doctors began to cross the street and laid down flat in the entrance of Faslane base. The speech culminated in the words: "...one day it becomes too much to bear. One day, enough lines have been crossed and it is the duty of the public and the responsibility of those who act in public interest to react - to join hands and stand up for what is right. Today, we are taking a stand - against illegal weapons of mass destruction on British soil, against a policy that is incompatible with British and International law, against nuclear submarines stationed in Faslane and for peace, health and a world free of nuclear weapons." The police called in a second truck of people who then took each protester by the four extremities, picked them up and carried them to the detention camp, where they were processed and send of to the jail in Glasgow.

Why is unilateral disarmament the best option? Shouldn't we only disarm when others disarm?
By disarming alone don't we weaken our hand in negotiations?

The danger of nuclear weapons being used does not limit itself to the possibility of a government deciding for a first strike. Nuclear terrorists hijacking a missile, renegade military personal, a computer error, a hacker attack, an accident like the dropping of a nuclear bomb over Spain by the US - all these are real dangers and they will only by overcome if all nuclear weapons are abolished. But who makes the start? 10 years ago, there were five nuclear weapons states in the world - the US, Russia, China, France and the UK. Then India and Pakistan joined the club with their nuclear test in the late nineties. Today, we are on the verge of two more countries - North Korea and Iran also developing nuclear weapons and Israel has been a secret nuclear weapons state for years. The number of states who feel that nuclear weapons are necessary is growing. And how do all of these countries explain their nuclear ambitions? By pointing at the existing nuclear weapons states, especially the US, and stating that as long as the US did not fulfil its promises to disarm, and continues to threaten nuclear strikes on countries like Iran and North Korea, they see the necessity to develop nuclear weapons themselves.

As the closest ally of the US, Great Britain takes part in this hypocritical system of nuclear apartheid. While certain countries have the right to own nuclear weapons to protect themselves (from whom?), others are not. This double standard has to be obliterated. If anyone should begin to disarm, it is the US with its more than 10.000 missiles, thousands of which are held in hair-trigger alert and can be fired by the push of one button by President Bush. There is no conceivable scenario more likely to compel the US into rethinking its Nuclear Posture than a decision by Britain to get rid of its Trident system. Additionally, it would create a higher level of independence for British foreign policy. Without having to buy US-made nuclear warheads and submarines, without being dependent on the US for their maintenance - Britain could prevent being dragged into another illegal war of aggression - the next one against Iran is already looming in the distance. Will Britain again stand on the side of their US ally? A third argument for British disarmament is the idea of a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone in Europe. This concept, described in more detail on the website (see here) requires a firm decision by France and the UK to get rid of their nukes and by countries harbouring US missiles (currently Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, the UK and Turkey) also ridding their soil of these illegal WMDs. Only then could Russia be pressured into getting rid of their nuclear weapons on European soil. What a symbol such a NWFZ would be to the world if the most heavily armed continent could manage to put their Cold War scenarios behind it for good?

Is it safe to be without a nuclear deterrent?
Will people take us seriously in the global community if we have to rely on others for nuclear defence?

The question is rather: is it safe to have a nuclear deterrent? Right now, Britain is seen all over the world as a co-aggressor on the international stage, threatening to use WMDs against other countries, invading sovereign states to secure its own access to resources, breaking international law, planning to breach the Non-Proliferation act by replacing its Trident System with more advanced missiles. Britain has in the past already been Targets of terrorism due to its role in Bush's 21st century crusade. As long as Britain retains nuclear weapons, the danger of one of them being used against Britain is always these. The nuclear deterrent is like a gun in the home - who is to say that it won't go off against the owner itself? Another thought: what security to the weapons give Britain? To they prevent a terrorist attack? Would a situation be conceivable where the threat of a nuclear strike could actually prevent an attack on Britain? By whom? Right now, as far as we know, the weapons have been detargeted and do not automatically point at Moscow anymore. Retargeting them would take hours if not days. The scenarios which the military practices still run under the old "hit the Soviets before they hit you" banner. What real security do these weapons then provide that could possibly outweigh the risk (and the costs) of having them? A final thought: What if the money poured into nuclear arms would instead be used for debt relief or development? Would not real security mean investing in global development, easing the pressure on countries of the Global South and thereby creating quality of living in regions like Sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia or the Middle East. Would people not take a country more seriously that addressed the real problems in the world heads on? Would they not respect it more? Would such a move not make Britain (and the world) much safer than any amount of nuclear arms could ever make it? Why fight terror with state terror? Why not steal the terrorists their arguments? And what if the money would instead be used for education or health care, easing the pressure on the British population caused by Globalization? Would that not make Britain a safer country as well? There are so many ways of creating real security and real respect for Britain in the world - why is the only answer politicians seem to find the continued development of nuclear weapons? One of the participants in the blockade, AndrŽ Michel from Ireland said: "Even putting the 20 billion pounds on a big pile and burning them would be a better use of the money than putting it into Trident."

Why should medical students care about this?

As medical students we strive to be good doctors. A good doctor tries to discover the root causes of problems and address them in an encompassing treatment plan. A good doctor tries to prevent what he cannot cure. A nuclear strike has no meaningful medical response. Hiroshima and Nagasaki - even Chernobyl - have shown us: after a nuclear weapon, there's not much that doctors can do to help anymore. So they have a moral obligation, a social responsibility to prevent this ultimate disaster from happening. We know that nuclear weapons kill in three different ways and we must bring an end to this incessant threat to global health. Like fighting smoking or violence so must we doctors and future doctors engage in the struggle to abolish nuclear weapons. Rudolf Virchow, the great German pathologist once said: "Medicine is a social science and politics is nothing more than medicine on a greater scale." We know the facts, people look up to us and respect our opinion, we have high reputation and the resources to make a difference - with this comes a responsibility to act. Medical students who want to be more than just lab rats, who want to address the real threats to health should realize that they too can make a difference...

Alex Rosen

Alex Rosen is a recently graduated medical student from Dusseldorf, Germany, where he studied at the Heinrich-Heine University.
He is also a member of the Board of Directors of IPPNW and led the International Student Movement for the past two years

Being carried away by the police	In front of the base	The blockade group in the morning	Sign at the entry to Faslane
Warming up in Glasgow	Decorating the base	André, Kiran and Thomas	Kiran from Leeds making some noise